JOAN FONTCUBERTA and PAUL WONG were all over the city these past two weeks introducing opening exhibitions and giving conferences for the 14th Mois de la Photo Biennale. Luckily I got a sublime slice of time to hear the deeper thoughts behind the event curated by M. Fontcuberta, who is himself a well established photographer, and where M. Wong, a multimedia artist, had an exhibition entitled Multiverse at the Joyce Yahouda Galleryand a dazzling outside projection,Year of the GIF, at Quartier des Spectacles.

I loved the point of view Joan Fontecuberta took to construct the
biennale. I kept returning to the impact of new technologies on photography, I
expressed how I related to Facebook coming up in certain exhibitions like for
example AFTER FACEB00K: IN LOVING
MEMORY < 3 at the McCord Museum. To Paul Wong I expressed how I related to
the theme of his exhibition, the Multiverse, because it is the HOT subject in
contemporary physics. Scientists will spend BILLIONS of dollars to prove the
existence of multiverse but, I told him, I believe artists already prove it.

Lena- The biennial shows the expanding possibilities of
the image on film and the impact of our new technologies. But what do you see as
the future of classical photography, of the object on the wall?

Joan- In your question you mention art with technologies and this
is something I would like to avoid.The problem I propose is not about technology at all. It is about
changes in our culture, in our technologies, in our economics and so on, which
require those technologies. For me technologies are not endings of a new way of
thinking but the effect of the requirements that now, in the 21rst century, we
have. Two years ago Mois de la photo
presented “Drone: the automated image” which was about a kind of automatic
vision, about how our visual experience was implemented by different devices
allowing us new kinds of perceptions. We can see images from very far
distances; we can penetrate our bodies, this kind of thing. My approach strayed
from this concern. Certainly some of the artists in the last biennials program
could have fit perfectly within my program. But we don’t see the other’s
perspective in the automated image which is the perspective here. I am
interested in the way, in the current situation, images speak to us differently
from how they did in the past.Why do we take photographs? What do
photographs mean to us? How do
they communicate with others? How their historical values have changed. For
instance, in the former century, photographs were linked to memory and truth,
now not necessarily. My parents have family albums where they collected
pictures from their grandfathers, from their ancestors. The album was a kind of
totem. Photographs were tissues, materials, objects unto which we projected an
idea of the past an idea of the memory of how the family was united and it was
a symbol of that unity.Now all this has changed. We take pictures. We send
them. They reach our target and they are deleted. So photographs become
conversational. They are not intended to last. They are not intended to rest in
an album, or in an archive, or in a cage, or even in a museum. Their
circulation is their basic nature. Because of that last example I feel that
many things have changed. Images relate to another kind of thinking and to
another kind of geistig as a state of the time. And that is the reason I feel
the workof Paul Wong presented
here is quietly illustrating some of these ideas. The installations presented
here fit perfectly with that concept of an accumulation of images. There are so
many pictures the works becomes a kind of panoscopic projection. This brings up
the following issues: when we have such an incredible amount of images
available, do all the pictures have the same importance? And secondly, when we
have all those possibilities, are there still missing pictures? How do you
recognize that the picture is missing? This could be a question I will address
in the future.

I am sixty years old, so I am not digitally born.
There are many phenomena I am not able to understand. I have two grandchildren
who are very skilled with the buttons and devices and gadgets and things like
that. They were born in the computer age and all these kinds of devices are
near to them, they belong to their everyday landscape. I see the consequences
of that but I don’t understand them. I have a kind of distant and difficult way
of looking at that. And I think it is not a possible perspective, it is not a
complete perspective, but it is the perspective of someone who has been working
in the photographic dark room with the red lights and the chemistry. So I
understand this photography in another way. Comparing this practice of
photography to now is similar to speaking Latin instead of the more current
languages of French or Spanish. At the time, these were the fundamentals of the procedure to create images and those were the things that had to be done to circulate an
image. This is no longer a necessary process to create or diffuse images.

Lena- I would like to hear from Paul about why he called his
exhibition Multiverse? When I visited your exhibition I felt the meaning of
that word, I felt the Multiverse.

Paul-First I should give the credit to Joan because he came
up with the title. In the universe, multiverse, this body of work like a lot of
my work is focused on the concerns everyday life. These images are mine. They
are not from the Internet. I mean there are some screen shots from the
Internet, also screen shots from television. There are screen shots from life
on the street, architecture, family, friends, studio, studio visits, art, mine,
and yours. I use photographs instead of taking notes. I photograph everything.
That’s how I can remember a price tag or a piece of technology I want, that is
how I do my shopping list too. Very formal stuff. And of course a lot of this
work comes from me carrying around my smart phone. And I think what has made
this now even more possible is the new technology, which is the digital. The
digital has made it possible for me, with one device, to have the multiverse.
It is all there from my business, from my pleasure, from my personal, to the
ephemeral, it is all there. I carry my smart phone with me; it’s my only
accessory. It’s my watch, its my broach, it’s my bank book, it’s my everything.
It’s also the digital platform. I come from an analog practice as well as Joan.
Before I used to work in the studio, work with the sound, with the photography,
look at slides, then make long or short videos and write as well. I used all
separate platforms and different mediums. It was a different way of doing it,
processing it, and sharing it. But the digital has collapsed all of that. It
took me a while to get into that place where the photography, the video, the
sound, the text are all brought together.

Part of the process for the video installation Year of the GIF, where listening and looking were involved, was done on social platforms
and part of the making of that work was exploring the medium of that particular
social platform like a video. But invariably I was on those platforms making
and sharing that work with a number of people via social media or Instagram. I
was making this and putting it up there and people were looking at it, but it
was something from me that you could see. So that work comes from exploring social
platforms and sharing that. So that is a very important part of the process. I
was never making the work myself or making the workfor the gallery. It ended up being in the gallery, taking
this form. These things will do that. Year of the gif originated from me
wanting to make this gif for you (pointing at Joan). I though “Joan would like
this”. He is a part of that platform.Lena-I would like to know more about your process since you began
with analog and then quickly evolved with the technology. Do you think you will
get more involved with the technology or somehow use all your acquired
techniques?

Paul- I am a media artist. I always worked with media in form, in
content, and also I am very concerned about the work's distribution. That’s a part of
how I see things, shape things and share what I see and shape with somebody
else. So the idea of taking a series of photographs … tic tic tic, photographs
and snip snip it becomes little stripes is improbable. The new media thing here
is that I can make the images and slice them and rework them quickly. You can
see how I have taken that everyday thing, the smart phone, and worked with it
and lubricated the process in the cutting of this work.

Left: Mike Pence Right: Donald Trump . Image taken from this page where their body language is analyzed. Trump often places his hands o...

The Inconceivable Emerge Art

See the action of water as it shapes logic defying images.

SEARCH / RECHERCHE

The most unbelievable Emerge Art YET!

On this link, you will see the wonder that water creates. The featured image is the one in the center of this 3 image presentation. To photograph water making images, you must not focus light directly on it. Consequently, with Forensic Photoshop, you can see the artwork of water EMERGE!

Pin It

An extra-dimensional work of art, jump into the inconceivable as you journey the labyrinth inside the circle. Follow the links within the articles and at the end of each page to have your understanding of reality challenged like never before!

About Me

On this blog you will find out about exciting and innovative people, events and subjects.
I focus on Montreal but some features come from Around The World!
I enjoy talent ingenuity and interesting people.
Do not be shy to share your views with me.